The release of the United States’ Human Rights Report has triggered contrasting political reactions in South Africa, exposing deep divisions over the country’s human rights record, foreign policy stance and relations with Washington.

The findings have been welcomed by some opposition parties, condemned outrightly by others, and formally rejected by the South African government.

It comes on the back of escalating tensions between the two countries. The government has said that the global report by US State Department is an inaccurate and deeply flawed account that fails to reflect the reality of the country’s constitutional democracy.  

Democratic Alliance spokesperson on international relations Ryan Smith stressed the urgency of repairing the strained relationship.

“The fact that such discord between the United States of America and South Africa is playing out so publicly further underpins the need for the urgent appointment of a competent ambassador in Washington D.C. to begin the process of repairing diplomatic channels and rebuilding the relationship,” Smith told Inside Politics on Wednesday.

“It is well documented that South Africa faces severe challenges relating to crime, safety, and security, but the data has repeatedly proven that crime does not disproportionately affect one grouping in our society.

“We agree that more must be done to tackle this issue as one of the major threats to South African society and economic growth.”

In a blistering statement, Economic Freedom Fighters spokesperson Sinawo Thambo rejected the report as “imperialist propaganda” aimed at punishing South Africa for asserting its sovereignty and aligning with causes such as Palestinian solidarity.

Thambo accused Washington of selectively amplifying incidents, including police killings of suspects, to depict South Africa as “unfit to govern itself”.

He criticised the report’s reference to revolutionary songs at EFF rallies and its warnings about land expropriation, framing these as attacks on the Black majority’s struggle for land justice.

“This is part of a longstanding imperialist playbook,” Thambo said, likening it to US interventions in Iraq and Libya.

He charged that South Africa was being targeted for standing up to “apartheid Israel” at the International Court of Justice and for cultivating ties with nations such as Russia and China.

By contrast, the Freedom Front Plus (FF+) hailed the report as a vital acknowledgment of “worsening” conditions for Afrikaners and other minorities.

Party leader Corné Mulder said it underscored Washington’s unwillingness to “turn a blind eye” to South Africa’s situation and confirmed four conditions allegedly presented by US officials to Afrikaner leaders during a recent visit.

These included declaring farm attacks a priority crime, unequivocally condemning the song Kill the Boer, ensuring land expropriation only occurred with fair market-related compensation, and exempting American companies from Black Economic Empowerment requirements.

Mulder said the ANC’s refusal to adjust policy “further isolates South Africa” and pledged that the FF+ would continue to raise human rights concerns internationally.

Meanwhile, labour union Solidarity said the document was an example of just how far the government’s policy differences, increasing geopolitical tensions and a noticeable lack of constructive dialogue has impacted the country.

Solidarity confirmed that the union was planning another visit the US capital next month, in an attempt to fix relations between the two countries.

Spokesperson Jaco Kleynhans said the union would push for abolishing race-based laws, improving bilateral relations and securing a fair deal on trade.

“The government’s continued unwillingness to engage in self-examination exacerbates poverty, erodes race relations and undermines international relations as well as support for the country,” Kleynhans said.

This follows the International Relations and Cooperation department strongly rejecting the report earlier in the day, describing it as “inaccurate” and based on “a-contextual and discredited accounts”.

It criticised the US for prematurely framing certain cases such as the deaths of farm workers under active judicial consideration as extrajudicial killings.

It also noted that incidents of police use of force were being investigated under South Africa’s constitutional oversight mechanisms.

The department said it was “ironic” for a country that withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council to issue such assessments, especially given America’s own record on migrant detention, racial inequality and due process violations.

The department highlighted a recent UN Human Rights Office assessment that supported the Expropriation Act as a necessary step towards redressing racially imbalanced land ownership.

The dispute comes amid already tense bilateral relations between Pretoria and Washington, complicated by disagreements over South Africa’s foreign policy alignment, especially its ties to Russia, China and Palestine.

The report asserts that South Africa’s human rights situation “significantly worsened” in the past year, citing “credible reports” of arbitrary killings, unlawful detentions and repression of racial minorities.

It specifically criticises President Cyril Ramaphosa’s signing of the Expropriation Act as a “substantially worrying step” that threatens the land rights of Afrikaners and other minorities.

It highlights unresolved cases of farm attacks, inflammatory rhetoric against racial minorities and alleged intimidation of journalists.

While the DA urges diplomatic repair and the FF+ calls for meeting US demands, the EFF and the government see the report as part of a broader pattern of Western interference.

INSIDE POLITICS

The post SA divided over US human rights report appeared first on Inside Politic.

Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema has been banned from vising the United Kingdom due to his support for the Palestinian group Hamas and his “kill the Boer” chants.

This was revealed in a letter to Malema by the UK’s Home Office in Pretoria, which provided reasons why he was denied a visa to speak at an event in that country earlier this year.

He could not travel at the time after he was informed in the 11^th hour that the application was still being processed and was encouraged to withdraw it as he would not make engagement on time. However, Malema insisted the application stood and wanted to know the real reasons for the delay.

In a letter dated 17 June 2025, the Home Office informed Malema that he has been banned from entering the UK and future visa applications were likely to be declined unless his behaviour changed. Further, each visa application would be considered on its merits.

Malema was informed that he had no right to appeal this decision and could not take it on review.

The office described Hamas as terrorist organisation and said Malema’s statements were a threat to public safety in that country.

“An application for entry clearance, permission to enter or permission to stay must be refused where the applicant’s presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good because of their conduct, character, associations, or other reasons (including convictions which do not fall within the criminality grounds).

“The non-conducive grounds for refusal or cancellation of entry clearance or permission considers that a person’s presence in the UK may be considered not conducive to the public good if the individual has been involved in unacceptable behaviour, including past or current extremist behaviour,” explained the letter.

The office described it as unacceptable behaviour for individual express views which incited, justified, or glorified terrorism to further their beliefs.

It said the current UK government definition of extremism considered that extremists could incite hatred, erode democratic institutions, social capital and cohesion.

It noted that due to advanced technology, Malema could express his views on social media, but it could not afford to grant him a visa lest he repeated his views on the UK soil.

Malema’s was quoted in the letter for his support of Hamas where defended the organisation’s attack on Israel.

“Additionally, I note that you have made statements calling for the slaughter of white people or hinted that it could be an acceptable option in the future. In 2016, you said that your political party was ‘not calling for the slaughter of white people, at least for now’,” it said.

Malema was further reminded of his case in the Equality Court in February 2022, where it said he told the presiding judge that he could not guarantee calling for the slaughter of white people in the future as he was not a “prophet”.

“Your presence in the UK has been assessed as non-conducive to the public good on the grounds of your conduct, character and associations, which makes it undesirable to grant you entry to the UK.

“I consider that the above statements, notably that your political party would arm a proscribed organisation and other statements you made justifying the actions of proscribed terrorist organisations, means your presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good,” it reads.

The EFF said it was unsurprised that Malema had been denied entry based on political reasons.

It said the letter confirmed that it was untrue that his application could not be processed due to administrative issues when he was set to visit at Cambridge University in May 2025, as initially claimed by the UK government.

“The UK Home Office went as far as extending an apology for what it knew was a political ban that was being hidden under challenges of administration. The UK has declared the commander in chief and president of the EFF an ‘extremist’ whose presence in the UK would not be conducive for the public good.

“This country which has a long history of imperialism and still has the blood of Africans dripping from its hands as its wealth was built on the back of African people, has suggested that all further applications by our president are likely to be denied unless he changes his posture on the issues which characterise him as a revolutionary,” it said in a statement.

The party said the Equality Court had in fact found that the singing of “kill the Boer, kill the farmer” could not be interpreted as a literal call for genocide, but was an expression of liberation heritage. The Constitutional Court further ratified this decision.

“There is no judge of the Equality Court of South Africa who ever posed a question to the President of the EFF challenging him to declare that he will never slaughter white people or make such an utterance, it was in fact the incompetent lawyer of the racist AfriForum Mark Oppenheimer who posed this question.”

It said the conflation of a lawyer and judge by a country as influential as the UK revealed deep-seated illiteracy by the UK and a “peddling of misinformation by a state against South Africa’s judiciary which must be condemned”.

The EFF stated categorically that neither Malema nor EFF would trade its revolutionary beliefs in exchange for a visa, and it would continue to support the oppressed of the world, especially the Palestinian people.

INSIDE POLITICS

The post Malema unlikely to be granted a UK visa unless he changes his tune appeared first on Inside Politic.